In response to: “Some have argued the “Redeker Plan,” while controversial, was the single most effective way to fight the zombies. What do YOU think?”

The Israeli solution also seemed to be very effective. However, that was a proactive solution while the Redeker Plan–and others like it–was a reactive solution. Unless I missed it, we don’t know what happened to the North Koreans. They may have had a very effective plan as well. But I doubt it. When the Americans go on the offensive, their plan appears to be effective–though time consuming–too.

The Redeker Plan seems to have been highly regarded as effective because it permitted people to take some sort of action when they felt powerless. Does this make it effective because it’s affective? Unfortunately, the action was effective only to the extent that it sacrificed other non-infected people. I don’t believe it can be considered effective if it is morally reprehensible.

I agree that the effect of the plan is somewhat dampened because of the plan’s moral shortcomings. It is a tough call when we must weigh the needs of the many against the lives of a few. Isn’t this the basic tenant of war? We often justify these actions because of a crisis or extenuating circumstances. My thoughts are – that if we have true moral values and have a belief in something greater – well then we should never …… NEVER stray from our convictions.